Guidance for Reviewing Proposals

Reviewing a proposal?Log in to submit your review.
If you are already logged in, close this window to return to your reviews.Reviewing a fellowship proposal?Find guidance here.

Your review of the proposal is separated into three sections. Please provide:

A general numerical evaluation of specific aspects of the proposed project

Detailed written comments that you feel will help the panel determine the merits of the project

A score that reflects your overall rating of the proposal

General Scores

Your numerical ratings give the panel a general idea of your judgment of the scientific merits and relevance of the proposal. Scores are tallied as part of the final proposal evaluation. Specific guidance on each ranking factor is provided below.

A. Research

Objectives: Are the scientific objectives clearly stated and justified?

Methodology: Are the methods appropriate to the scientific problem outlined?

Time Schedule: Can the PI complete the project in the allotted 24 month time frame specifically set in this Request for Proposal?

Budget: Is the budget sufficient and realistic? Is there sufficient time budgeted for the PI and associated staff?

B. Outreach Potential

Opportunities: Are there potential opportunities to link the research project to an outreach effort over short- or long-term timeframes? Is a plan proposed to translate the results of the study for end-users outside of direct scientific peers?

Potential Impact: Does the research have a potential to impact public perceptions, management decisions, or policy?

C. Applicant

Knowledge of the Field: Does the applicant demonstrate a clear, well-grounded knowledge of the field of study? Are the appropriate references acknowledged?

Previous Contributions: Based upon the brief CV provided, does the applicant appear to possess the background and technical foundation needed to complete the project?

Overall Rating

Based upon your numerical ratings and detailed comments, please provide an overall rating for this proposal. Please note that a rating of "excellent" should indicate a truly exceptional proposal that has the potential to address critical issues and make a substantive contribution over the life of the award.

Detailed Comments

Comments provided here are an essential component of the review process. They are in large part the technical basis upon which the panel makes decisions. Intellectual merit and consistency with the RFP should be highlighted. Comments made here should also address issues of relevancy and programmatic fit. In addition, a detailed technical evaluation provides vital insights that will help applicants formulate stronger research efforts and better proposals in the future. Please feel free to use this space to provide background and justification for your numerical ratings of the proposal.

Program Announcements

Maryland Sea Grant seeks to hire a Science Writer / Editor to explain and share findings from scientists, extension agents, and other sources to help advance public understanding and management of Maryland's natural resources. More details.

Maryland Sea Grant has program development funds for start-up efforts or strategic support for emerging areas of research. Apply here.

News and Blogs

Video Gallery

A native of New England, Walter Boynton began his science career as a summertime assistant at the Chesapeake Biological Laboratory in Solomons, Maryland. Over the next 40+ years he became a leading marine researcher and advocate for science-based approaches to restoring the Chesapeake Bay.

Featured Research Project

We have developed a technology to efficiently produce infertile fish by disrupting primordial germ cell development in fish embryos. The technology uses a bath immersion to administer a Morpholino oligomer (MO) against Deadend (Dnd), an essential protein for early germ cell development in fish. This approach has been successfully used in the zebrafish, trout and salmon. The goal of this proposal is to examine the feasibility of applying this technology to sablefish.